Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that After death, no subject exists to bear the deprivation of future goods.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Deprivation can be understood comparatively: a life cut short is worse than it could have been, independent of experience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We recognize harms to the dead (desecration, betrayal of wishes) suggesting subjects can be affected post-death.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The subject existed when future goods were foreseeable; deprivation occurs to that earlier subject's reasonable expectations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Deprivation requires a subject who experiences or can conceive of their loss at some time.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Death ends all consciousness and subjective experience, eliminating any possible bearer of deprivation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
We cannot harm someone by events they never experience or are unaware of occurring.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42